News
SpaceX’s Starhopper gains thruster pods as hop test preparations ramp up
Amid a flurry of new construction at SpaceX’s Boca Chica facilities, technicians have begun to install thruster pods on Starhopper in anticipation of the prototype’s first untethered flights.
According to CEO Elon Musk, Starhopper’s “untethered hover tests” will begin with just one Raptor engine installed, potentially allowing hops to restart within the next few weeks. SpaceX is currently testing Raptor SN03 (and possibly SN02) a few hundred miles north in McGregor, Texas, just a few hours’ drive south once the engine is deemed flight-ready. Meanwhile, Starhopper itself needs a considerable amount of new hardware before it can begin Raptor-powered flight testing.
A Falcon Raptor-powered Starship
Purely from a visible perspective, the most important component Starhopper is missing is a way to control its attitude and remain stable while under Raptor power, particularly critical for hovering. Enter the aptly-named attitude control system (ACS), essentially a pod of omnidirectional thrusters. SpaceX already happens to have its own extremely mature ACS proven over nearly two dozen successful Falcon 9 and Heavy booster landings, as well as every Falcon upper stage that has ever flown. SpaceX’s ACS is based on powerful nitrogen gas thrusters, known for their white puffs during Falcon 9 booster recovery and landing operations.
On May 6th and 7th, SpaceX began to install what looked like Falcon ACS pods on Starhopper. Curiously, of the two pairs of thrusters now installed, half appear to be taken directly off of older mothballed Falcon 9 boosters, while the other two seem to have been acquired from a Falcon 9 Block 5 rocket. The latter pods may very well have come from Falcon 9 B1050, the booster that unintentionally landed in the Atlantic Ocean last December.
Based on the asymmetric location of the first two pod groups, Starhopper’s ACS will probably use a tripod layout. Additionally, the reason for the thruster pairs – versus Falcon 9’s single pods – is likely simple: Starhopper is far heavier than a Falcon booster. To get the same level of control authority, SpaceX is thus pairing pods together to double the functional strength of Starhopper’s ACS.
This leads smoothly to the installation of two (likely soon to be three) new composite-overwrapped pressure vessels (COPVs). Starhopper already has two COPVs installed on the outside of its upper tank dome, now effectively confirmed to be helium containers needed to pressurize the vehicle’s methane and oxygen tanks. Based on the fact that Starhopper’s new ACS pods appear to have come straight from Falcon boosters, it’s safe to say that the 2 (or 3) new COPVs will supply the hopper’s thrusters with gaseous nitrogen.
The Ugly Starshipling
In general, this is just the latest chapter in the book of the oddity that is Starhopper. With helium tank pressurization and nitrogen ACS thrusters taken straight from Falcon 9, a major facet of SpaceX’s Mars architecture is entirely missing from the prototype. Known as autogenous pressurization, BFR was meant to use gasified versions of its onboard liquid oxygen and methane to pressurize its propellant tanks. In a similar vein, BFR was expected to integrated the same propellant into its ACS. Simply put, helium is simply out of the question if SpaceX wants to realize its reusable Mars transport architecture. Mars does have a minute quantity of nitrogen available in its already very thin atmosphere, but extracting hundreds or thousands of kilograms is impractical in the near-term, particularly if the first Starship have to carry all of their extraction equipment from Earth.
Although Musk has seemingly confirmed that Starship and Super Heavy will use ACS thrusters more akin to the Falcon family’s cold nitrogen gas pods, he did also confirm that autogenous pressurization would be a part of even the earliest iterations of the rocket. The move from carbon fiber to steel tanks likely made a major difference, as carbon composites have extremely limited heat resistance.
Without autogenous pressurization and propellant tanks closer to the thickness of orbit-capable Starships, Starhopper is really more of a mobile test stand for Raptor than anything else. The ungainly vehicle also offers SpaceX engineers an opportunity to test Starship/Super Heavy avionics in flight conditions, particularly with respect to controlling a real Raptor engine on the fly.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
